What recievers would you take over Prime Michael Irvin?

[mastermind]

That's a very difficult thing to gauge. I will say that if Tim Brown was on the Cowboys offense, he would flourish, and I seriously doubt that if Irvin was on those Raiders teams he would produce in the manner that Tim Brown did.

Everyone saw Irvin in his prime. Most people did not see Brown in his prime because they sucked and only made the playoffs once (and when they did, he had that spectacular 80 yard TD where he shook Don Beebe out of his shoes). By time Gannon was there and they were winning, he had lost a step and was more of a possession receiver, and he wasn't very big so he could get roughed up at the line at times.

Mid-90's Tim Brown was a monster. He had excellent hands, was an excellent route runner, and was explosive in the open field. He was always running short routes because he was on the only WR on the team that could run a route and get open.

But anyway, if someone thinks Irvin was better than Brown, that's a totally reasonable opinion. My basic point is that Irvin is overrated and should be compared to people like Tim Brown...2nd tier WRs. If Irvin makes the HOF, Brown and Carter should've been in yesterday.

 

[FloorGeneral]

I came in here solely to make sure Sterling was mentioned, and I see some folks trying to discount him. All bias aside, Sterling in his prime >>>> Irvin at any time. It's a shame injuries cut his career short, cause he was well on his way to becoming a HOFer.

Anyone trying to discount Sterling, I know for a fact never seen him play. He was sooooooo good. Sucks he was gone by the time we won the chip. That's why Shannon will always have my respect, for giving Sterling one of his rings.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

my argument, and the HOF voters () is that Irvin was a better player than both dudes. He was a more impactful player.

Better yards per game, better yards per catch (meaning dude was moving the chains more), and was a vital cog on one of the greatest teams in NFL history. he didnt have the TD numbers because his team was stacked. You can say that favors him but it also hurt his numbers.

And in their primes, Irvin was the better player. Was seen as the better player and received those accolades.

You can make a slight case for Cris Carter being better, but Tim Brown was never better than Irvin.

Im going to put this smiley here to make you mad:

@he didn't have the TD #s because his team was stacked. Oh, so I guess Rice and Carter shouldn't have those TDs number either, huh? I mean, their offenses were stacked.

He had a better ypc because that was his role and he had the means to fulfill it. He caught the ball downfield and he had the most accurate (arguably) QB in the league throwing him darts. And he was going against 8 in the box quite often because of the Cowboys running game.

Tim Brown was Mr. everything on the Raiders. Most of the time, he was just catching slants underneath routes because he had glorified track stars like James Jett and Alexander Wright as his help and noodle-arm Hostetler throwing to him. And the Raiders routinely ranked near the bottom of the league in rushing throughout Tim Brown's prime years in the 90's. He was their offense. But he was fast and explosive and he showed it whenever he got space.

How do you think Michael Irvin's ypc and numbers in general would look in that bullshyt ass pre-Gruden Al Davis offense?

And Cris Carter was better than Irvin in every way.

You seem to want to argue Irvin vs. Brown ad nauseum, but my point is that is a reasonable debate. He should be compared to people like Tim Brown. He's in Tim Brown's tier. He's not an elite all-timer. It's ridiculous how you're just matter-of-factly saying he was clearly the 2nd best WR in the 90's.

What about Isaac Bruce? Isaac Bruce one had 119 catches, 1781 yards, and 13 TDs one season and got beat out for the Pro Bowl by Irvin. Dude beasted year in and year out on the low.

There are several WRs who put up even or better numbers than Irvin or were equally or more talented than him that you never hear come up in these elite WR talks. Michael Irvin is not head and shoulders above or even arguably above at all in some cases people like Cris Carter, Tim Brown, Larry Fitzgerald, Andre Johnson, Sterling Sharpe, Andre Rison, Steve Smith, Andre Reed and Jimmy Smith just because he used to murk your Redskins and he played for a stacked team. And if he got drafted by the Cardinals nobody would give a fukk about him and he would not be in any of all time conversations.

Nobody denies he was one of the best and deserves to be in the HOF. Why can't you just admit he's overrated? How the fukk is he a shoe-in for the HOF with little debate and compared to Rice and supposedly a top 100 player of all time when Cris Carter is still sitting there waiting with over double his TDs?

 

[mastermind]

I came in here solely to make sure Sterling was mentioned, and I see some folks trying to discount him. All bias aside, Sterling in his prime >>>> Irvin at any time. It's a shame injuries cut his career short, cause he was well on his way to becoming a HOFer.

Anyone trying to discount Sterling, I know for a fact never seen him play. He was sooooooo good. Sucks he was gone by the time we won the chip. That's why Shannon will always have my respect, for giving Sterling one of his rings.

that, I would agree with

now this is a career that people have forgotten about

not a dude who played for a bad team in the LA market.

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Michael Irvin might've gotten tackled by Don Beebe. He wasn't exactly known for his moves in the open field.

 

[mastermind]

Michael Irvin might've gotten tackled by Don Beebe. He wasn't exactly known for his moves in the open field.

google don beebe

 

[Regular_P]

I'm surprised nobody has said Herman Moore or Rob Moore at this point..

Came in here to say this.

 

[theoretic]

google don beebe

chill. don beebe was a dope DB. don't you remember how he stopped leon lett, one of the greatest rbs of all time, from getting that touchdown in the super bowl?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

The stupidity and disrespect in this thread is on some other shyt.

Those hatin on the playmaker clearly either never watched an actual game he was in to understand the context in which he made plays, see dez wearin the same number and moving fairly similar and somehow subconsciously discredit irvin, or just dnt know shyt.

Torry ****? Steve Smith? Wow.

Irvin made big plays in big games, types of plays that very few others could duplicate. Cris Carter is great and should be hof for sure but he wasnt nearly as dynamic or type dominant as irvin. Irvin was a transcendant talent that would dominate any era.

To answer the question, Jerry Rice and motivated moss and thats it. And if u took irvin over either and played against the team with rice or moss focusing on those talents, ud have just as good of a shot at winning (all other variables equal for hypothetical purposes).

The all time leading rusher wasnt even the playmaker on his own team. Think about it.

 

[Gil Scott-Heroin]

my argument, and the HOF voters () is that Irvin was a better player than both dudes. He was a more impactful player.

Better yards per game, better yards per catch (meaning dude was moving the chains more), and was a vital cog on one of the greatest teams in NFL history. he didnt have the TD numbers because his team was stacked. You can say that favors him but it also hurt his numbers.

And in their primes, Irvin was the better player. Was seen as the better player and received those accolades.

You can make a slight case for Cris Carter being better, but Tim Brown was never better than Irvin.

of course he does, he refuses to take context into consideration.

How the fukk you gon' criticize folk for refusing to take context into consideration - when YOU'RE the one who's actually guilty of it?

 

[904Lurker]

A prime Jimmy Smith was unfucwitable

 

[Newzz]

lol at Michael Irvin being better than Sterling Sharpe

Jerry Rice and Sterling Sharpe were the best 2 WRs of the early 90s, followed by Michael Irvin, Cris Carter, and Tim Brown.

 

[L&HH]

It's true. Michael Irvin would not ever get into the Hall if he didn't play for the Cowboys, and was the flashy, shyt-talking "playmaker" everyone knows and loves. Tim Brown and Cris Carter are still waiting to make it into the Hall. Irvin going 1st ballot and those two still waiting is an absolute travesty.

Cris Carter: 1101 catches, 13899 yards, 130 TDs

Tim Brown: 1204 catches, 14934 yards, 100 TDs

Michael Irvin: 750 catches, 11904 yards, 65 TDs

Dude only has 65 career TDs and goes 1st ballot...unbelievable. He never had more than 10 TDs in one season.

If Michael Irvin played for the Cardinals or the Bengals nobody would give a fukk about him. Isaac Bruce was having 100 catch, 1500 yard, 12 TD seasons on the low on the Rams with bums like Tony Banks throwing to him and he might not get in the Hall. He is criminally underrated. Jimmy Smith is another one.

Really you can add Troy Aikman to that overrated Cowboy debate as well. If you look at his numbers they'll have you like . He only threw more than 20 TDs 1 time in his career (only 23 ), 4 times in his career he threw more int than TD mind you he only played in 12 seasons and in 2 other seasons he had only 1 more TD than Int, so basically half his career he played with at best a 1:1 TD to Int ratio...

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Really you can add Troy Aikman to that overrated Cowboy debate as well. If you look at his numbers they'll have you like . He only threw more than 20 TDs 1 time in his career, 4 times in his career he threw mor int than TD mind you he only played in 12 seasons and in 2 other seasons he had only 1 more TD than Int...

Troy being overrated gives more credit to irvins numbers than takes away from it. Everyone clowning on irvin for his td numbers, but look at aikmans. Aikman had 20+ once and irvin gets hate for not having more than ten as often as others.

 

[L&HH]

To answer the question Id take Rice, Moss, To, CJ, AJ, Fitz, Carter over him